What influence did King Henry VIII of England have on Protestant, non-Catholic Christianity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jimmy_B said:
What influence did King Henry VIII of England have on Protestant, non-Catholic Christianity?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Henry-VIII-kingofengland_1491-1547.jpg
Click to expand...
In order to marry Ann, the marriage with Catherine had to be annulled by the pope. Circumstances, however, were working against him. First, in order to marry Catherine, he needed special papal dispensation. Annulling the marriage would imply that the first papal dispensation was in error, something the pope was not willing to admit. Second, Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor, had recently invaded Rome and captured the pope. While the pope was allowed to stay pope, he was the virtual prisoner of Charles. The answer to Henry’s request, then, was no and no again.

When he met with failure, Henry did what every other king would do. He fired his closest advisor. This was an important move. His closest advisor on the matter was Cardinal Wolsey, the Lord Chancellor of England. The negotiations with the papal court were largely carried out by Wolsey. When he failed, Henry dismissed and arrested him and replaced him with Thomas Cranmer and Thomas Cromwell. Both these men were sympathetic to the new ideas of Martin Luther. They gave the king some radical advice: if the pope does not grant the annulment, then split the English church off from the Roman church. ****Rather **than the pope, the king would be the spiritual head ******of the English church. If the King wants an annulment, then the King can grant his own annulment.
Click to expand...
Here
Click to expand...
 
Basically, he wanted to divorce his wife for not bearing him a son, and the Catholic Church would not let him. He was motivated to establish the Church of England.

But that is just one of many Protestant denominations. Bear in mind. “Protest”-antism.

Martin Luther is, I’m sure, the “Protestant Pope.”

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood
 
Blade_and_Blood said:
Basically, he wanted to divorce his wife for not bearing him a son, and the Catholic Church would not let him. He was motivated to establish the Church of England.

But that is just one of many Protestant denominations. Bear in mind. “Protest”-antism.

Martin Luther is, I’m sure, the “Protestant Pope.”

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood
Click to expand...
In no way is Luther the ‘Protestant Pope’.

Henry had a fairly big influence - but only because he separated the church from Rome. It was Cranmer who made anglicanism anglicanism. But his influence was only a catalyst - the reformation would have come to England anyway, seen by the strong puritan presence in England, as well as the Lollardy movement 100 years earlier.

Henry was an evil man, but out of a selfish act something good came.
 
grampben said:
Henry was an evil man, but out of a selfish act something good came.
Click to expand...
What was the good that came from the King’s removal from The Roman Catholic church?

Were the Puritans Christians?

King Henry’sVIII influence paved the way for other power seeking princes’s and kings to follow suit from the Once Roman Catholic protector of the faith.
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
What was the good that came from the King’s removal from The Roman Catholic church?

Were the Puritans Christians?

King Henry’sVIII influence paved the way for other power seeking princes’s and kings to follow suit from the Once Roman Catholic protector of the faith.
Click to expand...
As a non-catholic christian I see it as a good thing.
I am not a puritan, but yes they were, and they made up one side of the Church of England.

Edit: The Kings of France and Spain, the Holy Roman Emporer and even the Pope were all corrupt, it’s what comes with autocracy.
 
40.png
mike00077:
Much of this quote is acccurate. Some is not, and there are details not addressed, such as the issue of the nature of the impediment, with respect to the dispensation which originally permitted Henry and Catherine to wed; affinity in the first degree collateral, only, or also an impediment of the justice of public honesty. Henry;s approachforced the issue to be seen as one of being ultra vires. There were other ways to approach it.

The 2nd para is weaker. It was not so much Cranmer and Cromwell who pushed the idea. Henry developed his own concept of his as an imperial throne, subject to no outside authority within the realm, based a good deal on his reading of Tyndale’s OBEDIENCE OF THE CHRISTIAN MAN, which put the idea of Caesaropapism in his head. He directed, rather than followed, the campaign, which was in keeping with the direction of about 250 years of English history, back to the Statute of Westminster.

But the quote is pretty good, overall.

GKC
 
grampben said:
As a non-catholic christian I see it as a good thing.
I am not a puritan, but yes they were, and they made up one side of the Church of England.

Edit: The Kings of France and Spain, the Holy Roman Emporer and even the Pope were all corrupt, it’s what comes with autocracy.
Click to expand...
I can respect your opinion. But one thing remains, All these self proclaimed Kings were set up by man. The only one that remains is the chair of Peter instituted by Jesus himself.

That said, no one argues that bad men have sat in the Chair of Peter, Peter himself included who denied Jesus 3x’s but the office of Peter still remains fully human and fully divine. I would question the Christianity of the puritan leadership. History records the ruthless conquering they aspired to do, when King Henry opened the door of freedom to persecute othe Christians and especially Ireland,not to mention the inhouse killings that took place to gain power. But that is another story. Much historical evil was introduced by King Henry’s seperation from the Roman Catholic church especially the immorality that came about from this seperation.
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
What was the good that came from the King’s removal from The Roman Catholic church?

Were the Puritans Christians?

King Henry’sVIII influence paved the way for other power seeking princes’s and kings to follow suit from the Once Roman Catholic protector of the faith.
Click to expand...
I can see that this thread is just another opportunity for Catholics to get some more cheap shots in at King Henry VIII just as they have Martin Luther, John Calvin and anyone else that spoke any disagreement with Rome.
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
I can respect your opinion. But one thing remains, All these self proclaimed Kings were set up by man. The only one that remains is the chair of Peter instituted by Jesus himself.

That said, no one argues that bad men have sat in the Chair of Peter, Peter himself included who denied Jesus 3x’s but the office of Peter still remains fully human and fully divine. I would question the Christianity of the puritan leadership. History records the ruthless conquering they aspired to do, when King Henry opened the door of freedom to persecute othe Christians and especially Ireland,not to mention the inhouse killings that took place to gain power. But that is another story. Much historical evil was introduced by King Henry’s seperation from the Roman Catholic church especially the immorality that came about from this seperation.
Click to expand...
Charles IX of France, or his mother depending on which historian you believe, orchastrated the ST. Bartholomew’s day massacre. 10-30000 French Protestants were murdered by Catholics for political (and religious) reasons. Outside of France the only person who seemed to celebrate was Pope Gregory XIII who had a Te Deum sung and struck a medal. Pope John Paul II @1997 apologized. IIRC seemed Pope John Paul II apologized for other actions of the church from history.

Immorality, murder and down right evilness was not limited to Henry VIII. By the way, The Roman Catholic church gave its seal of approval to the leaders of France, Spain etc. If you question the Christianity of the puritans, I guess you question the Christianity of the above listed Roman Catholics who participated and celebrated in such an unchristian and uncatholic action.

This all proves that we are all sinners and none are perfect. We could all sit back and cast stones at each other, or point to the splinter in each others eye (bring to mind a certain teaching of our Lord). Or we could act like Christian brothers/sisters are suppose to act with each other.
 
MarkBrown said:
Charles IX of France, or his mother depending on which historian you believe, orchastrated the ST. Bartholomew’s day massacre. 10-30000 French Protestants were murdered by Catholics for political (and religious) reasons. Outside of France the only person who seemed to celebrate was Pope Gregory XIII who had a Te Deum sung and struck a medal. Pope John Paul II @1997 apologized. IIRC seemed Pope John Paul II apologized for other actions of the church from history.

Immorality, murder and down right evilness was not limited to Henry VIII. By the way, The Roman Catholic church gave its seal of approval to the leaders of France, Spain etc. If you question the Christianity of the puritans, I guess you question the Christianity of the above listed Roman Catholics who participated and celebrated in such an unchristian and uncatholic action.

This all proves that we are all sinners and none are perfect. We could all sit back and cast stones at each other, or point to the splinter in each others eye (bring to mind a certain teaching of our Lord). Or we could act like Christian brothers/sisters are suppose to act with each other.
Click to expand...
This is by far the most thought out post on this thread yet.
 
his influence led to the acceptance of divorce. Something is denounced in the Bible. He started a well known religion and has an influence on many Christians with his beliefs.
 
tobinatorstark said:
his influence led to the acceptance of divorce. Something is denounced in the Bible. He started a well known religion and has an influence on many Christians with his beliefs.
Click to expand...
Hold on here. Isn’t divorce permitted in Scripture?
 
SIA said:
Hold on here. Isn’t divorce permitted in Scripture?
Click to expand...
Matthew 19
3
Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?”
4
5 He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’
5
and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
6
So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”
7
They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?”
8
He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
9
I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery."
Click to expand...
 
adrift said:
Ver. 4. &c. For it is impossible,[1] &c. This is an obscure place, differently expounded, which shows how rash it is for the ignorant to pretend to understand the holy Scriptures. Many understand these words, it is impossible, &c. of the sacrament of penance, or of returning to God by a profitable repentance, especially after such heinous sins as an apostacy from the true faith. But then we must take the word impossible, to imply no more than a thing that is very hard to be done, or that seldom happens, as when it is said, (Matthew xix. 26.) that it is impossible for rich men to be saved: and (Luke xvii. 1.) it is impossible that scandals should not come. For it is certain that it is never impossible for the greatest sinners to repent by the assistance which God offers them, who has also left the power to his ministers to forgive in his name the greatest sins. But others (whose interpretation seems preferable) expound this of baptism, which can only be given once. The words here in the text very much favour this exposition, when it is said, who were once enlightened. For baptism in the first ages was called the sacrament of illumination. See St. Denis de cælesti Hierar. chap. iv.; St. Gregory of Nazianzus; &c. The following words also agree with baptism, when they are said to have been made partakers of the Holy Ghost; to have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come; all which signify the interior graces, the miraculous gifts, and power of working miracles, which they who were baptized frequently received in those days. — They cannot be renewed again unto penance. That is, they cannot be renewed again by baptism, which is also called a renovation. (Titus iii. 5.) Their sins may indeed be forgiven them in the sacrament of penance, but this is not a renovation like that in baptism, in which both the guilt, and all pain due to past sins, is remitted; whereas in the sacrament of penance, though the guilt, and the eternal punishments due to sins be remitted, yet many times, temporal punishments, to be undergone either in this world or the next, still remain due to such as have been great sinners, to them who by relapsing into the same sins, have crucified again to themselves the Son of God, making a mockery of him; i.e. who, insensible of the favours received, have ungratefully renewed sin; to take away which Christ suffered, was mocked, crucified, &c. (Witham) — Macknight observes that Beza, without any authority from ancient manuscripts hath inserted in his version Si, If they shall fall away, that this text might not appear to contradict the Calvinistic doctrine of the assurance of salvation. The English translators have followed Beza. The biblical student will be glad to find Dr. Wells, in his elegant edition of the New Testament, frequently restoring and preferring those readings which agree with the Latin Vulgate. The same just tribute is paid to the Vulgate by Walton, Mills, Gerard, Griesbach, Harwood, and others. Indeed the Vulgate has been declared authentic in a general council, and probably expresses more of the true reading of the original or autograph, than any Greek edition that is now to be found, and certainly much more than modern versions, which are stained more or less by the preconceived sentiments of the translators. — For the earth that drinketh in the rain, &c. He bringeth this comparison, to give them a horror of abusing God’s graces and favours, and of making themselves guilty of hell fire. (Witham)
Click to expand...
exactly. Moses permitted divorce not God. The 10 Commandments were given later in Moses’ life after Moses permitted divorce, I believe. Please correct me if I am wrong
 
MarkBrown said:
Pope Gregory XIII who had a Te Deum sung and struck a medal. .
Click to expand...
Pope Gregory XIII was so horrified by the cruelties of the massacre that he wept for the many innocent dead, and refused to receive the assassin Maurevert in audience.
 
LutheranDK said:
Not much, really, except from the Anglican branch.
Click to expand...
However the puritan movement came out of this and it was the puritans who were the pilgrim fathers, so one could argue his influence has reached modern day evangelicalism that way. But it wasn’t so much HIM as it was the theological heads of the English reformation, eg Thomas Cranmer.
 
tobinatorstark said:
his influence led to the acceptance of divorce. Something is denounced in the Bible. He started a well known religion and has an influence on many Christians with his beliefs.
Click to expand...
But Henry never received a divorce. Never wanted one.

GKC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top